9:26:00 AM
review time =)
dramafeste reviews:
friday night
rating system based on play as a whole
A+: excellent
A: very good
B+: good
B: ok..
B-: bleah. not too good.
-- i hope no one goes below these --
starting off with.
the emcees:
barely audible, didnt look like they were having much fun. a far cry from wai kit and akesh from last year's dramafeste. no entertainment factor at all. bleah.
buckley:
don't, directed by yewei
i personally think it was much too slow, and draggy, whenever the psychaitrist and Jonathan were talking, it was like... bleahh. not much emotion, was there? only when they drifted into their memories, there was finally some show of emotion. Yewei was basically cameo-ing all the way, and regrertfully, he shouldn't have; he was the one with the most.. entertainment factor.
lighting was plain, nothing special. most of the time, it was just basic 70%+ - white light cast on most of the stage. rather like what a normal light would do in a classroom, only dimmer.
props were ok, except for the black boxes, which were a very good use of them, to represent variosu locations and things.
rating: B-
so sorry, yewei..
hullett:
before lesson one
directed by daniel sim
so.. this was basically a play set out to show the shadows of last year's comedy spree Moo, this and That, BUT with the intention to add a little more drama in the plot. this doctor grapples with his past, in a rather confusing way; i didnt actually get the fact that the patient2 (dr greg), played by walter, was actually the past of dr gregory, played by anish. so it was kinda confusing.. i was like.. huh are they the same? no.. one greg one gregory.. ?!?!
there werent many props involved, which is commendable, because they managed to do the whole thing with just a desk and two beds, and not to mention the 2 lt seats. the stage hands only had, basically, one set change, and that was it. (note to conan: mebbe u want to take note of this?)
lighting was ok.. they just toyed around with different shades of white, the RGB wasnt touched at all. Except for the part where Anish kept opening and shutting the OHP, which was irritating, the lights were not a major factor, because unlike Buckley's play, where the plot is so slow that you find yourself looking around at the stage, Hullett's was much more captivating and humourous for anyone to care about the lights.
Rating: A
Mrs Smith would be proud.
moor:
because
directed by j. auyong.
personally, i had only knew about auyong as the debater, and not the dramatist, so this play would be a new.. twist?
the plot was basically quite stale, things like this are rampant on channel 8 serials, you see little helpless boys getting bullied in school everywhere. adding.. well, actually, removing a leg from the equation would just be one extra detail, except this time, the medication for the guys leg led to the loan sharks and everything.
i thought the ensemble bit was good, but i am still in shock
i am like.. oh my **** that was what we planned to happen to shylock. omg. now how? we cant go on becauase that would be too blatant, dammit. EVEN THE LIGHTING WAS THE @#$# SAME AS WE PLANNED!
just goes to show how cliched things can be. BLEAH
the lighting was not bad, it cycled between red, white and spotlight. the props, which were probably rotting inside, was so old and reused from last year, they score for recycling contest. haha.
Rating: B
Falling short of Hullett;
improve the script and it could have challenged Hullett's charge for the top.
RATINGS AFTER DAY 1
1. Hullett
2. Moor
3. Buckley
